Part 2 -- [Continued from July 21st posting]

Of course people like "woodlema" will tear this down. After all, to them, the very concept of team just means that "some group thinks they can tell me what to do", and "why should I give a damn about people 'too stupid or too lazy' to plan for their future survival?"

Whoever you are, I hope for your sake that you are never in a car accident, or in a fire, or in any situation for which you did not plan, or for which you may have your life or your freedom saved by someone who was not paid by you to save it.

"Survival of the fitest" is for animals in a jungle or an ocean, not free, intelligent beings.

Beings such as we, look to the survival of all, sometimes even our former enemies.

If John Galt thought as you do, he would have made his millions selling his power machine -- not caring what it was used for -- and took his fortune, bought a castle, some yachts and planes and such, and lived large to the end of this days -- and totally ignored the entire world while it crashed to dust all around him - until it imploded and crushed him as well.

John Galt gained no personal advantage by saving his fellow producers and creating the Gulch. He just knew that a sane TEAM of able individuals was what was needed to put the world back together again.

That's the kind of guy who stops his car and helps pull your car from going over the cliff -- not because he is an altruist -- but because he is not an animal, but instead a free, able being who knows what a sane world looks like.

And "I got mine, but you didn't get yours because you were too stupid or lazy so that's too bad for you" doesn't build a sane, pro-survival world.

Please Gulch, stop the snickering and snarling, and how about some more positive responses, eh?

Part 1 of 2:

Thank you Mr. Aarethun for asking this question. I have been an objectivist for over 40 years, and a productive, hard working individual for at least that long -- yet I find myself in a situation not dissimilar to your own. I'm a survivor, and no matter what, I will find more work, and will continue to work without complain (unless I find myself working for suppressive and evil beings).

However, what troubles me even more than my situation, is the unbelievably glib, harsh, even cruel responses that came back from your question. Although Miss Rand could get pretty angry at times and rightfully so (I saw her in person a few times in the 1970s), in general I always thought of her as a very positive, encouraging, and very NON cynical being.

After reading some of the responses to your question, I am almost embarrassed at level of venom and cynical cruelty that came back.

By the way, you didn't fail. The world went wrong, not you. But you see... that's what a TEAM is for -- to SURVIVE all the crap that the damn universe dishes out, that an individual might not be able to handle on their own, no matter how able they are.

I don't give a damn what the intentions of the original Social Security architects were, nor what those of today's politicians are - be it just a political ploy for votes or not. I look at Social Security as a SURVIVAL point.

Every great organization, team, army, company -- any super successful and strong group for that matter -- has always had a motto which every member has taken very seriously, which goes something like "No man left behind", "if you go, we go", or a 1000 different variations that all say the same thing.

Does this means they are all socialists and communists and the group is everything and the individual nothing? Of course not! Such great groups all through history valued the individual as much as we do. But they also valued the power of a highly connected, super competent team of individuals - especially when the going got seriously tough.

So instead of snickering and snarling at how incompetent and evil and false the Social Security System is, how about we look at it this way?

We have a 300 million people team that makes up a country that very dictator, communist, facist, suppressive person, and psycho would like to wipe off the face of the Earth. This includes those who live within the county itself -- both as citizens and non-citizens -- who hate their fellow man because their insane, and especially hate anything that has to do with freedom, self worth, volition, or anything that advances such concepts in our citizens.

Not to mention that the planet itself and the universe itself, likes to toss a few natural disasters our way.

So being a smart, competent, reliable, success-driven team of 300 million people who refuse to give in to all the above-named crap, and insist on surviving as sane, free, thriving individuals, decide as a group to create a 300 million people driven "insurance system" - to help any of our fellow team members when "shit happens". We do this by all agreeing that when we do work, we contibute an agreed upon percent of what we make each time we receive exchange for our work, to the SURVIVAL INSURANCE fund that is available when needed. Too old to work (or too infirm), work simply not there anymore, natural disasters, war, politically created disasters, you name it, the insurance fund will possibly be available. But only on a LIMITED basis.

Of course, knowing we are surrounded from the outside and from within by those who are very much of a different mind -- whether super evil and despotic or just plain lazy and stupid -- we would as an intelligent team of able individuals in the greatest country on planet Earth, have to design and institute some super strong CONTROLS, so that all this insurance fund money was not abused and wasted.

By doing this, we honor those who have worked hard but have reached a point where they simply cannot work any more -- or for whom work simply is no longer available -- or perhaps even just as a reward of being productive members of the 300 million person team for 6-7 decades without complaint. Plus they paid into the fund, didn't they.

No welfare. No hand-out. Just team-driven, team agreed upon, insurance.

A sane solution in an insane world.

[Continued in Part 2]

I've seen this before and he definitely an inspiration of what can be done if you really WANT to.. But there are quite a few people out there that are saying that they "can't" work and many of them are lifestyle choices. Personally, I don't think that anyone that has scrambled their own brain by doing drugs should be eligible for a penny.

An interesting point to make. If you read EXACTLY what I wrote above, I never suggested "just die."

No place did I even infer such.

I stated that if people paid attention to themselves, there is no NEED for any government to take care of us.

If you belong to a group, a church, have family, you should already have a support mechanism. There is insurance you can BUY to take care of that possibility.

The long and the short is society has no real need to take care of you, I am not my brothers keeper, everyone should be accountable and responsible for themselves and their lives and not impose their problems on other period.

Now if YOU, for your sake have the internal need to support people in dire straights, then by all means do so, you would be doing it for your sake with the product of YOUR labor.

Should I choose to or not to that is all for my own sake and based on my personal sense of what I value.

But I am always happy to alter my personal view,, so here is my challenge.

Using the Objectivist lexicon, or any writing of Ayn Rand within the Objectivist philosophy, show me where Government, or you or I are responsible or accountable in any way to support for or provide for anyone else regardless of their circumstances self imposed or otherwise because THEY want, need or expect it..

Don't give in, don't give up, don't give up. Ask for charity from those who have done better. Start a new career. You'll have lots of time to rest when you're dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD-fH...

Tell me again about "people who cannot work."

There is a difference between SS being "half of my retirement income" and "even after cutting my living costs to the bone, SS funds half of my retirement expenses". Without explaining which one is the case, any attempt to determine "what went wrong" is destined to fail.

Many baby boomers are faring much worse than our parents because they refinanced their houses over and over, rather than retiring with a small house that was fully paid for; they paid for expensive educations for their children rather than the public college and university educations that many of the baby boomers had found sufficient; they borrowed against their houses and took loans or distributions from their [already insufficient] 401K plans to help out their kids; they co-signed education loans for their children who then left their parents to pay them off; and other financial errors that the Depression era parents would have recognized as foolhardy. Any one of those -- and especially more than one of those -- would be failing to plan, if not actually planning to fail.

I do not see in the Objectivist oath where there is a caveat for accident, or misfortune...do you?

Please refer to the Objectivist Oath.

The social safety net is an illusion based on the absurd notion that if enough money is created and distributed, everyone will have enough to live on. This has never worked under any form of government and never will.

I'd add:

Don't have children you can't afford to raise.

NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY in this country, with half a brain and a little bit of work would EVER starve in this country.

If you are too damn lazy to "do" something, and just want to sit around like a lump, then yes, you deserve to starve.

Also, there is another point to this. "IF" you are an atheist, then by definition you must believe in evolution. Rules of Darwinian evolution, STRONG survive Weak DIE. This is good for the species, so what is the issue?

And they would be?

Con or necessity? Any gov't m-a-n-d-a-t-e-d program is a con. And let's not forget that our illustrious "leaders" opt out.

A Con that for many has become a Necessity thanks to mixed market economic policies and huge tax burdens foisted upon the productive by over-bloated statist government. It has made it quite difficult for most to save for themselves when wages have been stagnant partly due to unfair trade and immigration policies, job market outsourcing and innovation stifled. The program itself was destined for failure, being nothing more than a ponzi scheme with unsound math and foresight. Although it can be argued that the creators of the scheme, according to well documented reports, knew it was so and thus it would not be shortsighted, but intentionally disingenuous for political gain... FDR!

Xenokroy, I thought about the same as you do, but
the HR man at the plant insisted I should, and he
said the company (although they had paid it in) would not regard it as robbery. So I took it. (I also
thought I would be able to pay it back to the company because I would soon have a job).
I have been unable to get the kinds of part-
time, seasonal jobs one of the others mentioned.
I had good attendance, and am still very strong;
I lift weights on a barbell I have in the house. I
have never been unemployed this long before,
since I left my father's house in 1970.-The long-
est before was about a week and a half in 1977,
and that was the extreme case, and only once;
I had needed time to get business arranged be-
fore I moved to Richmond. Once I had been
unemployed about 4 days between the Dairy-
Rite (see www.dairy-rite.com) and the furniture
factory; and my speed record was walking out
of a mill at 3:15 or so A.M. and being put to work
at a poultry plant in Bridgewater within about 4
hours and 15 minutes.--Not that I always got a
job I wanted; I've worked for very long stretches
at one place while trying to get hired at another.

But I'm still trying.